A meeting of the Building and Operating Committee was held in the Board Room, Administration Building, Toll Plaza, San Francisco, California, on Thursday, March 27, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., Chair Eddie presiding.

In a memorandum to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Z. Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith reported on current engineering projects. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan provided a status report on the Moveable Median Barrier (MMB) project, in light of the ten-vehicle crossover accident on the Golden Gate Bridge on March 26, 2008. Mr. Mulligan stated that in early 2007, the District undertook wind tunnel testing of a MMB on the Golden Gate Bridge, in all possible lane configurations, to ascertain whether or not it was feasible from an aeroelastic or wind dynamics perspective to install such a barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge. He also stated that the wind tunnel testing was successfully completed, and the test results were released in May 2007, as part of the Suicide Deterrent System Phase 1 Wind Studies Report. Mr. Mulligan further stated that with the adoption of the FY 07/08 Budget, the Board of Directors authorized staff to begin work on a Request for Proposals to hire a consultant to perform environmental studies and a final design for the MMB project. Mr. Mulligan also noted that most recently, the District was fortunate to receive $20 million programmed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, as well as a Congressional Earmark of $490,000, for the MMB project. He stated that District staff will be issuing the Request for Proposals for the MMB project in the next few months.

Action by the Board – None Required

2.

Closed Session

Attorney David Miller, at the request of Chair Eddie, stated that the Building and Operating Committee would convene in closed session to discuss a matter of pending litigation listed on the agenda as Item No. 8.a.1, Herbert Hoffman and Catherine Dodd vs. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District).

After closed session, Chair Eddie called the meeting to order in open session with a quorum present. Attorney Miller reported that the Committee met in closed session, as permitted by the Brown Act, to hear a report from legal counsel with regard to the matter of Herbert Hoffman and Catherine Dodd vs. District. He further stated that the Committee provided instructions to legal counsel regarding this matter and that no action is necessary at this time.

The report stated that the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon Project (Phase IIIA Project), will involve the removal and replacement of the North Anchorage Housing roof, which is an approximately 300 foot long segment of the Bridge roadway, and the adjacent sidewalk areas on the east and west sides of the roadway. This provides an opportunity to again consider potential changes to the current design of the sidewalks both in a physical and operational sense. The District’s last major safety initiative was the addition of the public safety railing that runs the length of both the east and west sidewalks. It is appropriate for the Board to consider a preferred design for the east and west sidewalks of the Golden Gate Bridge in light of the onset of the Phase IIIA Project. The report explained that maintaining the current design and operation for both the east and west sidewalks makes the most sense in light of the totality of the circumstances.

The report described the operational aspects of the east and west sidewalks, which are integral parts of established recreational trails, such as the California Coastal Trail and Bay Area Ridge Trail. There are trail markers for each of these trails on the south and north approaches to the west sidewalk, and the Bridge sidewalks attract a wide variety of users. The north end of both sidewalks leads cyclists and pedestrians to unimproved property in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) and in the Marin Headlands. At the south end, the east and west sidewalks also connect to GGNRA land, including Crissy Field. Therefore, the Golden Gate Bridge’s sidewalks provide access to scenic lookout points and recreational activities, such as hiking, biking and walking. The report also described the existing signage for bicyclists on the east and west sidewalks, noting that there is currently no bicycle speed limit on either of the Golden Gate Bridge’s sidewalks.

The report outlined the schedule for bicycle and pedestrian use of both the east and west sidewalks, noting that on weekends and holidays, when there are the most pedestrian users and the heaviest demand from cyclists, cyclists are directed to use the west sidewalk. The bicycle path on the west sidewalk is an established paved bicycle path across the Golden Gate Bridge, with signage that clearly designates the hours during which bicycles are permitted on the west sidewalk. The report noted that no pedestrians are allowed on the west sidewalk at any time.

The report provided a history of the various Bridge construction projects that affected the current physical design of the east and west sidewalks, including the Deck Replacement Project, completed in 1985, and the Public Safety Railing Project, completed in 2003. The report stated that during the design phase of the Public Safety Railing Project, it was determined that it was not feasible to widen the sidewalks or stripe the sidewalks to separate bicycle lanes, because of the physical, architectural and historical constraints of the Golden Gate Bridge structure. It was also found to be undesirable to close the west sidewalk to bicycle traffic completely, due to the heavy use of the east sidewalk by pedestrians, especially in the late afternoon and on weekends and holidays. Staff believes that it is advantageous to separate bicyclists from pedestrians whenever possible.

The report also provided accident data for the past seven years, noting that on the east sidewalk, the rate of incidents per year has remained constant since the 2003 completion of the public safety railing, even in light of the increase in the numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists who use the east sidewalk. The report noted that on the west sidewalk, incident rates are not increasing as quickly as the level of bicycle traffic on the west sidewalk. The report also noted that the number of head-on bicycle accidents, a more serious concern than bicycle incidents, generally have remained constant or decreased even with increasing levels of bicycle traffic. It appears that the current design of both sidewalks is as safe now, if not safer, than it ever has been.

The report discussed bicycle speed issues on the east and west sidewalks, noting that while excessive speed is an issue on occasion, it does not appear to be a dominant factor in the majority of bicycle incidents on either the east or west sidewalks. The report stated that, in an effort to address the speed issue, staff has collaborated with the San Francisco and Marin bicycle coalitions to create a list of “Rules of the Road” for bicycling on the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks. These rules have been posted to the District’s web site, disseminated to members of the bicycle coalitions and provided to bicycle rental shops near the Bridge for customer use.

The report outlined the various potential design changes for the east and west sidewalks in the context of the Phase IIIA Project, as follows:

Sidewalk Hours. District staff believes that the current schedule for bicycle use best balances the District’s need to maintain the Golden Gate Bridge, with the laudable goal of providing the public with access to recreational opportunities. Closing the Golden Gate Bridge’s west sidewalk to bicycles, or further curtailing available hours, would not serve these important purposes. Nor is it feasible to further expand bicycle access to the west sidewalk, as this would compromise Bridge maintenance operations during weekday daytime hours. Similarly, staff believes the hours of operation for the east sidewalk are also appropriate both with regard to pedestrian and bicycle access. In summary, the east sidewalk is always open to pedestrians from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., in the summer and from 5:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the winter. The east sidewalk is also available to bicycles during weekday daytime hours until 3:30 p.m. After 3:30 p.m. on weekdays and on weekends and holidays, bicyclists have exclusive use of the west sidewalk. Thus, both pedestrians and bicyclists are accommodated at all times and, when feasible, bicyclists and pedestrians are kept separate, especially during peak usage hours.

Widening the East or West Sidewalk. District staff again has considered the possibility of widening the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks. This option, which necessarily would include a complete redesign of the physical structure of the Bridge, would be expensive, time-consuming and with certainty would implicate historical preservation concerns. It is not a feasible alternative.

The Adequacy of Sight Lines. District staff has re-examined the sight lines for bicyclists on both the east and west sidewalks and has found that they are more than adequate. Much of the route on either sidewalk is straight. Where the sidewalks curve at the north and south ends, the curvature is not sufficient to compromise bicyclists’ or pedestrians’ sightlines. The routes around the north and south towers are tight, but bicycle speeds at those locations are typically modest, and do not undermine safety. Weather factors, such as fog and rain, again do not compromise sightlines at the speeds at which bicycles or pedestrians travel on the Golden Gate Bridge.

Two-Way Traffic and Striping. District staff again has considered whether the west sidewalk should be only one-way for bicyclists. This would require that the east sidewalk accommodate additional bicyclists during times when it is most congested. Again, staff believes it is desirable to separate pedestrians and bikers when feasible, especially during peak usage times. Moreover, making the west sidewalk one-way would hinder both the recreational and transportation utility of keeping the west sidewalk open for bikes. Staff has also considered striping to separate bike lanes on one or both sides of the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks. Staff concluded that striping the west sidewalk for two-way traffic is problematic and not advisable. The resulting lanes would be significantly less than four feet in width, and closer to three feet in width in some places, as the District stages its maintenance operations along portions of the west sidewalk. In addition, staff also recommends not striping the east sidewalk, because the presence of pedestrians on the east sidewalk makes striping even more problematic, due to the fact that the high number pedestrians could often block the separate lanes.

Light Post Placement. The light posts atop the North Anchorage Housing and along the east and west sidewalks of the Golden Gate Bridge itself form an unbroken design line that is a part of the Bridge’s distinctive aesthetic, and the spacing and location of the light posts is part of the historic fabric of the structure. While it might be possible to move these light posts, it would be expensive, especially in light of the many approvals that would be necessary and historical preservation issues.

Maintenance Activities and Equipment Staging on the West Sidewalk. Staff has considered whether there are any other potential alternatives to staging equipment on and conducting Bridge maintenance activities from the west sidewalk. The vast majority of maintenance activities are conducted from the west sidewalk. Public safety, employee safety and efficiency of our maintenance operations require that maintenance crews retain exclusive use of the west sidewalk during working hours. Further, it is not feasible to move the equipment associated with these maintenance activities to any other location on the Golden Gate Bridge. There are no other reasonable options. Breaking down maintenance equipment to clear the sidewalk for bicyclists on a daily basis would be prohibitively expensive. This alternative would not be feasible, as maintenance activities occur and equipment is used every day, and much of the equipment is very large and is connected to Bridge air, water and electrical supplies. The efficiency of maintenance operations would be compromised severely and costs would rise dramatically. Complete closure of the west sidewalk to bicycles is preferable to this approach, although staff does not recommend such closure.

Speed Limit. In the District’s continuing effort to make the Golden Gate Bridge as safe as possible for all users, it is suggested that a bicycle speed limit be considered, as well as other rules governing the operation of bicycles on either the east or west sidewalk, or both. With the dramatic increase in both bicyclists and pedestrians using the Golden Gate Bridge, it would be prudent to once again study whether a speed limit would enhance safety on either sidewalk. Staff also recommends that enforcement options be studied in that context. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board of Directors instruct staff to study the bicycle speed limit, other rules governing the operation of bicycles and related enforcement issues. The Bridge Manager should report back to this Committee with specific recommendations.

Signage. Staff recommends that the Board of Directors instruct staff to determine whether there might be any enhancement to safety on the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks through possible improvements in signage at either end, or along the length of either of the sidewalks. While District staff firmly believes that current signage is adequate, it is prudent and timely to inventory and review existing signage. It is therefore recommended that the Board of Directors instruct staff to inventory and review existing signage at either end of the sidewalks, as well as along their length, to determine whether safety might be enhanced with additional signage. It is further recommended that the Board of Directors delegate to the Bridge Manager the authority to add additional signage or change existing signage if the Bridge Manager determines that such a course is advisable. The Bridge Manager should report back to this Committee on the results of the survey and any modifications that resulted.

The report stated that it is recommended that the above-described actions be approved, in order to make the Golden Gate Bridge as safe as possible for all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, while balancing the costs and benefits of any potential improvements. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan introduced the staff report, stating that the onset of the Phase IIIA Project provides an opportunity to revisit both the design and operational aspects of the Bridge’s east and west sidewalks.

Kary Witt summarized the details contained in the staff report regarding the operational use of the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks. He noted staff’s commitment to separate bicyclists and pedestrians on the sidewalks whenever possible, due to the frustrations and conflicts that sometimes occur due to crowded conditions on the east sidewalk. He briefly described staff’s efforts to consider a bicycle speed limit on the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks, noting that the California Highway Patrol has expressed a willingness to undertake bicycle speed enforcement on the Bridge.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

Director Newhouse Segal made the following comments and inquiries:

She requested a report from staff on how much the District spends to maintain the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks for pedestrian use, especially since in her opinion, having the sidewalks available for pedestrian use is not necessarily part of the District’s core mission. In response, Denis Mulligan stated that staff will provide such a report at a future meeting of the Committee.

She expressed her concerns regarding the lateness of the hour of 9:00 p.m., at which time the east sidewalk is closed to pedestrians every day. She recommended that the east sidewalk be closed to pedestrians earlier in the evening.

Director Grosboll inquired as to whether District staff would be seeking input from the bicycle coalitions with respect to the bicycle speed limit on Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks. In response, Kary Witt answered in the affirmative, noting that the bicycle coalitions are an excellent resource for such matters.

Director Boro inquired as to whether the signage at either end of the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks is multilingual. In response, Mr. Witt stated that, due to the great variety of languages spoken by Bridge visitors and local residents, it was more prudent to use internationally recognized symbols on the signs, rather than try to convey the information in multiple languages.

Director Cochran made the following inquiries:

He inquired regarding the procedures for allowing bicyclists to cross the Golden Gate Bridge after 9:00 p.m. In response, Mr. Witt explained that the gates to the sidewalks are locked and monitored remotely by Toll Office personnel. When a bicyclist who wishes to cross the Bridge alerts the Toll Office personnel, they will open the gate remotely from the Toll Office to allow the bicyclist to enter.

He inquired as to the average number of bicyclists crossing the Golden Gate Bridge at night, and Mr. Witt stated that between 12 and 15 bicyclists use the Golden Gate Bridge at night.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/REILLY to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to the east and west sidewalks on the Golden Gate Bridge, as part of the Board’s continuing effort to make the Golden Gate Bridge as safe as possible for all users, including pedestrians and bicyclists, while balancing the costs and benefits of any potential improvements:

Approve maintaining the east and west sidewalk’s current physical configurations; that is, that no physical structures be moved and no widening of the sidewalks or relocation of light poles or relocations of railings occur, as part of the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon;

Retain the existing hours and operational aspects of the east and west sidewalks for pedestrians and bicyclists;

Direct staff to study the issue of a bicycle speed limit, other rules governing the use of bicycles on the sidewalks, and related enforcement issues; and, instruct the Bridge Manager to report back to this Committee with the results of this study and any recommendations; and,

Direct staff to inventory and review existing signage at either end of the Golden Gate Bridge sidewalks, as well as along their length, to determine whether safety might be enhanced with additional signage; and, delegate to the Bridge Manager the authority to add additional signage or change existing signage if the Bridge Manager determines that such a course is advisable, with the understanding that the Bridge Manager report back to this Committee with the results of this undertaking.

Action by the Board at its meeting of March 28, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

The report stated that the Engineer’s estimate for Contract No. 2006-B-1 was $87,118,797.25. The report noted that staff was satisfied with the competition for this contract, in light of the fact that the bids that were received ranged from 6 percent below the Engineer’s estimate, for the low bid, to 5 percent above the Engineer’s estimate, for the third low bid, which indicates competitive bidding.

The report provided background regarding Contract 2006-B-1, noting that the three bids listed above are the result of a second bid solicitation for Contract 2006-B-1 that was initiated on October 2, 2007. The first bid solicitation that took place from January 31, 2007 to May 31, 2007, resulted in two bids, which significantly exceeded the Engineer’s estimate and were subsequently rejected by the Board of Directors at its meeting of June 22, 2007, by Resolution No. 2007-056. The amount of the apparent low bid of the first bid solicitation was $95,832,929. Prior to the re-bidding of Contract 2006-B-1, some of the contract conditions were revised. The re-bidding resulted in decreasing the low bid price by $13,512,257.

The District Engineer, Attorney for the District and the DBE Program Administrator have reviewed the bids and have determined that the apparent low bidder is Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture (Shimmick/Obayashi), with a bid price of $82,320,672.00. The bid proposal from Shimmick/Obayashi has been found to be responsive, and the bidder has been found to be responsible. The bidder has submitted its bid, along with all the required documentation, in accordance with the bid requirements for Contract No. 2006-B-1. The report listed the required bid forms that have been submitted by the bidder, and noted that based on the submitted “Bidder’s Statement of Qualifications and Business References” and reference checks, staff has determined that the low bidder, and its team, have the requisite quality, fitness and capacity to satisfactorily perform the Contract work.

The report stated that Shimmick/Obayashi has also complied with the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program requirements applicable to Contract No. 2006-B-1, which is a federally funded contract, with assistance from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). There is no specific DBE contract goal for this FHWA-assisted contract, which also complies with the State of California, Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) race-neutral DBE process. The report noted that based on the DBE Program Administrator’s evaluation of the submitted “List of Subcontractors” and supporting forms, a DBE-certified company will be engaged to perform subcontracted electrical work for Contract No. 2006-B-1, with an anticipated DBE participation of 4.25 percent.

Based on the above findings, staff recommends that Contract No. 2006-B-1 be awarded to Shimmick/Obayashi, in the amount of $82,320,672.00, and that a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $8,232,067 be established for this contract. The District has requested and is awaiting concurrence from the FHWA for this award recommendation. In addition, it is recommended that a budget increase in the amount of $69,231,219 be authorized, in order to fully fund this contract. A copy of the report is available from the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

President Moylan and Chair Stroeh expressed their appreciation to staff for successfully reconfiguring the bid documents for Contract No. 2006-B-1, which resulted in such a positive outcome with three very competitive bids.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/BORO to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to Contract No. 2006-B-1, Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Phase IIIA, North Anchorage Housing/North Pylon:

Authorize a contingency fund for Contract No. 2006-B-1, in an amount of $8,232,067, equal to 10% of the contract award, upon receiving Federal Highway Administration concurrence with the award recommendation; and,

c.

Authorize a budget increase in the FY 07/08 Bridge Division Capital Budget in the amount of $69,231,219, to be funded with $62,447,958 federal funds and $6,783,261 District funds, for a total Phase IIIA Project budget of $119,231,219; contingent on receiving confirmation from the Federal Highway Administration and the State of California, Department of Transportation, that the $112,447,958 in federal funding previously approved for the Phase IIIA Project remains unchanged; subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of March 27, 2008.

Action by the Board at its meeting of March 28, 2008 – ResolutionNON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Authorize Execution of an Amendment to the Lease Agreement with The Presidio Trust Relative to a Construction Staging Area for Golden Gate Bridge Improvement Projects

In a report to Committee, Deputy District Engineer Ewa Bauer, District Engineer Denis Mulligan and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to authorize execution of an amendment to the Lease Agreement with the Presidio Trust to lease a parcel located in the Presidio of San Francisco for use as a construction staging area for Golden Gate Bridge improvement projects. The report stated that Golden Gate Bridge capital improvement projects, including the Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project (Seismic Retrofit Project), require staging areas for contractors’ offices, equipment and materials storage in close proximity to the construction site.

The report also stated that one of the conditions of the seismic retrofit environmental clearance is for such staging areas to be located away from the Golden Gate Bridge in order to minimize visual impacts to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area surrounding the Golden Gate Bridge. The National Park Service designated three parcels in the vicinity of Lincoln Boulevard as approved construction staging areas for the Seismic Retrofit Project. The use of these three parcels was documented in the Special Use Permit executed between the District and the National Park Service in 1996 for an initial term of five years. Subsequently, the portion of the Presidio of San Francisco where the parcels are located was transferred to the jurisdiction of The Presidio Trust, who entered into a Lease Agreement with the District in 2002 for the continued use of the three parcels as construction staging areas.

The report further stated that the term of the Lease Agreement has now expired, but that the District still requires the use of staging areas for the Seismic Retrofit Project and has requested an extension to the Lease Agreement. Representatives from the District and the Trust met to discuss the District’s and the Trust’s construction and staging area needs and agreed that an amendment to the lease was appropriate. The amendment will revise the lease by reducing the lease area from three parcels to one, by extending the lease for the parcel until 2013 and by increasing the monthly rental rate for the parcel to $7,750, plus yearly Consumer Price Index adjustments. There are insufficient staging areas on or under the Golden Gate Bridge to accommodate the scheduled Bridge capital improvement projects. Therefore, it is recommended that the amendment be executed for the continuation of the use of the parcel of land near Lincoln Boulevard, which is necessary for implementation of these capital improvement projects, especially the Seismic Retrofit Project. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Denis Mulligan summarized the staff report, noting that the use of the staging area in the Presidio avoids the appearance of multiple construction trucks parked near the Golden Gate Bridge construction sites located within a national park.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/MOYLAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of an amendment to the Lease Agreement with the Presidio Trust to lease a parcel of land located near Storey Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard in The Presidio of San Francisco, for use as a construction staging area for Golden Gate Bridge improvement projects, at a monthly rate of $7,750, for a five-year term, subject to annual Consumer Price Index adjustments.

Action by the Board at its meeting of March 28, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Approve Actions Relative to the Award of Contract No. 2008-FT-4, Installation of the Four New Main Engines for Re-Powering of the M.V. Mendocino, and Dry-Docking for Routine U.S. Coast Guard Inspection, Hull Maintenance and Repairs, to Bay Ship & Yacht Co.

In a report to Committee, Deputy General Manager/Ferry Division James Swindler and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation to award Contract No. 2008-FT-4, Installation of the Four New Main Engines for Re-Powering of the M.V. Mendocino, and Dry-Docking for Routine U.S. Coast Guard Inspection, Hull Maintenance and Repairs, to Bay Ship & Yacht Co., to install new engines on the M.V. Mendocino that comply with current U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) emissions standards. In addition, Contract No. 2008-FT-4 will undertake routine dry-docking for inspection, hull maintenance and repairs, since the vessel’s U.S. Coast Guard Inspection Certificate expires on March 31, 2008.

The report provided background information on the M.V. Mendocino, which was built in 2001 as the second vessel in the District’s high-speed ferry fleet. The report noted that the vessel’s engines now have in excess of 20,000 hours of operation and no longer meet current EPA emissions regulations. Consequently, the District applied for a State of California, Air Resources Board Carl Moyer Program grant to repower the M.V. Mendocino. The Carl Moyer Program provides grant funds to replace older “dirty” marine diesel engines with new environmentally friendly engines that meet current EPA standards. This contract is part of the larger M.V. Mendocino Repower Project that is jointly funded by the Carl Moyer Program and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funds, as well as the District’s FY 07/08 Ferry Transit Division Operating Budget.

In preparation for the work associated with Contract No. 2008-FT-4, the District has procured four MTU 12V4000M60 EPA Tier II marine diesel engines, as well as the required engineering services necessary for the proper installation of the engines. In addition, the District has purchased all of the materials required for installation of the engines.

The report stated that the District advertised for bids for Contract No. 2008-FT-4 on November 6, 2007, and received a single bid on March 11, 2008, from Bay Ship & Yacht Co. The report described the additional measures that staff took to ensure as competitive a bidding process as possible, as well as staff’s efforts to accommodate bidders’ requests for changes in scheduling, delivery requirements and bonding limits.

The bid specifications for Contract No. 2007-FT-7, included the following four categories of work:

Category “A” – Items relating to the installation of the new engines;

Category “B” – Optional items determined to be the most economical and efficient to procure and install on the vessel;

Category “D” – Items relating to maintenance work required to be performed on the vessel.

The report stated that that because this project is funded through the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and only one bid was received, it was necessary to conduct a cost analysis of the sole bid to ensure that the rates and cost structure were justified and reasonable. The bidder has complied with DBE requirements applicable to this contract, although no DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of the project.

The report also stated that staff recommends that Contract No. 2008-FT-4 be awarded to Bay Ship & Yacht Co., in the amount of $1,635,600.82, and that a contract contingency fund in the amount of $200,000 be authorized. The report noted that the different categories of work associated with this contract are funded from different budgets, and it is further recommended that the necessary budget increases be authorized in order to fully fund this contract. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, James Swindler summarized the staff report, noting that only one bid was received because most commercial shipyards are currently occupied with a variety of refurbishment projects, and are, therefore, more selective on the types of contracts for which they will submit bids. Mr. Swindler stated because only one bid was received, staff conducted a cost analysis and audit of the sole bid, which process reduced the bid price by $66,000. Mr. Swindler noted that the engine installation component of Contract No. 2008-FT-4 is part of the M.V. Mendocino Repower Project, which is included in the FY 07/08 Ferry Division Capital Budget in the amount of $2,300,000, and is 100 percent grant funded. He further stated that budget increases in the FY 07/08 Ferry Division Capital and Operating budgets will be required to fully fund this project. He stated that work associated with Contract No. 2008-FT-4 will take six to eight weeks to complete.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors STROEH/BORO to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following actions relative to the award of Contract No. 2008-FT-4, Installation of the Four New Main Engines for Re-Powering of the M.V. Mendocino, and Dry-Docking for Routine U.S. Coast Guard Inspection, Hull Maintenance and Repairs:

a.

Authorize award of Contract No. 2008-FT-4 to Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Alameda, CA, in an amount not to exceed $1,635,600.82, which includes all Category “A” items, one Category “B” item and all Categories “C” and “D” items;

b.

Authorize a contract contingency fund in the amount of $200,000, to cover anticipated sales tax and unanticipated items discovered while the vessel is in dry dock; and,

c.

Authorize a budget increase in the FY 07/08 Ferry Transit Division Capital Budget in the amount of $777,000, to be funded with federal grant funds, and authorize a budget increase in the FY 07/08 Ferry Transit Division Operating Budget in the amount of $70,000, to be funded from District reserves; subject to the concurrence of the Finance-Auditing Committee at its meeting of March 27, 2008.

Action by the Board at its meeting of March 28, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

In a report to Committee, Director of Planning Alan Zahradnik and General Manager Celia Kupersmith provided staff’s recommendation regarding execution of Professional Services Agreement relative to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 2008-D-4, Regional Bus and Ferry Passenger Survey, to Corey, Canapary & Galanis. The report stated that the “Regional Bus and Ferry Passenger Survey” is a long-awaited project, with the goal of gathering information from current and potential riders in order to improve existing regional transit service, increase market share of inter-county travelers in the District’s service area, increase efficiency and develop innovative services using new technology. The report also stated that the last large-scale survey devoted to gathering origin-destination, demographic and attitudinal data from the District’s transit passengers was completed in 1985. The work associated with RFP No. 2008-D-4 will update that effort, and seek to discover what it would take to get non-riders and infrequent riders to utilize the District’s bus and ferry services.

The report described the components of the survey, which include the following: (1) Regional Survey of Users and Non-Users, which entails gathering information from existing riders onboard the buses and ferries, along with a telephone survey that will explore the opinions of the wider traveling public; (2) Focus Groups, which groups are made up of both riders and non-riders in order to gain a detailed picture of public attitudes toward the District’s transit services and fares; and, (3) Survey of Local Transit Users, which entails gathering information existing riders onboard Marin Transit local bus routes. The report noted that the costs of third component will be funded by the Marin County Transit District (Marin Transit) under a separate contract.

The report stated that the District advertised RFP No. 2008-D-4 on January 29, 2008, and received four proposals by the due date of February 29, 2008. A Selection Committee, composed of District staff and a staff member from Marin Transit, evaluated the proposals using the following criteria: (1) qualifications of the firms and individuals assigned to the project; (2) experience with similar projects; (3) understanding of the project; (4) approach to providing the scope of project services; (5) demonstrated capabilities to perform the prescribed work; and, (6) cost proposal. The report also stated that following the initial evaluation, one firm was selected as best matching the criteria in the RFP. This firm, Corey, Canapary and Galanis, scored significantly more points than the two other firms that shared second place. This firm was invited to a follow-up interview. The interview took place on March 12, 2008, and the firm was found to be well qualified to perform the required services.

The report noted that the DBE Program Administrator has determined that Corey, Canapary & Galanis is certified as a DBE. The company has complied with the DBE requirements applicable to this agreement. At this time, approximately 85 percent DBE participation is anticipated during the performance of this agreement.

The report also stated that staff recommends that a Professional Services Agreement be executed with Corey, Canapary and Galanis, at a cost not to exceed $272,296. It is anticipated that the work associated with RFP No. 2008-D-4 will be completed by the end of October 2008. The report further stated that Marin Transit will take separate action to decide whether to proceed with the third component contained in the RFP, the “Option for Survey of Local Transit Users,” at a cost of $74,705. If Marin Transit decides to exercise their option for a local bus passenger survey, they will contract separately with the consultant. A copy of the report is available in the Office of the District Secretary and on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Alan Zahradnik summarized the staff report, acknowledging the work of Senior Planner Barbara Vincent, with the assistance of Principal Planner Ron Downing, in developing all aspects of the RFP for the “Regional Bus and Ferry Passenger Survey.” Mr. Zahradnik also stated that Corey, Canapary and Galanis is a local firm from San Francisco, with a wealth of experience in transit surveys and market research.

Public Comment

David Hoffman, Planning Director for the Marin County Bicycle Coalition, expressed his enthusiasm for the “Regional Bus and Ferry Passenger Survey,” noting that he hopes the results of the survey will reflect the significant increase in the use of public transit by bicyclists. He further stated that he hopes that an increase in bicycle and pedestrian access to the Larkspur Ferry Terminal (LFT) will mitigate the need for a parking garage at LFT.

Staff recommended and the Committee concurred by motion made and seconded by Directors REILLY/MOYLAN to forward the following recommendation to the Board of Directors for its consideration:

RECOMMENDATION

The Building and Operating Committee recommends that the Board of Directors authorize execution of a Professional Services Agreement with Corey, Canapary & Galanis, San Francisco, CA, relative to Request for Proposals No. 2008-D-4, Regional Bus and Ferry Passenger Survey, in an amount not to exceed $272,296, with the understanding that sufficient funds are included in the FY 07/08 District Division Operating Budget.

Action by the Board at its meeting of March 28, 2008 – Resolution
NON-CONSENT CALENDAR

Status Report from District Appointees on Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) Board

The Committee was provided with a copy of the agenda for the March 19, 2008, meeting and the minutes of the February 20, 2008, meeting of the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART). Copies of these items are available in the Office of the District Secretary, as well as on the District’s web site.

At the meeting, Chair Eddie praised the new clean diesel trains that are currently being evaluated by the SMART Board, and encouraged the District Board members to read the SMART White Papers.

Director Boro, one of the members of the SMART Board of Directors (SMART Board), reported that SMART’s Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) has been released, and that the SEIR evaluates the following topics: (1) potential station sites in Novato; (2) the feasibility of weekend train service; (3) the use of lighter, cleaner diesel trains; and, (4) the feasibility of freight service running during the day at the same time as passenger service. He stated that there will be two public hearings on the merits of the SEIR, one in Novato on April 9, 2008, and one in Santa Rosa on April 16, 2008, with final approval of the SEIR scheduled for the SMART Board’s meeting in June 2008.

Discussion ensued, including the following:

President Moylan inquired as to the anticipated start date for passenger rail service. In response, Director Boro stated that if the SMART sales tax measure on the November 2008 ballot successfully passes, then it is anticipated that passenger service could commence within two years.

Action by the Board – None Required

9.

Public Comment

There was no public comment.

10.

Adjournment

All business having been concluded, the meeting was declared adjourned at 11:10 a.m.